I was perusing the Aerosoft Airbus X forum and noticed that an "Airbus Advanced" version may be in the works. My initial reaction was excitement due to the prospect of an Airbus series being developed by another reputable development team. However, after reading through the thread, it appeared that most people don't want wingflex/vc rain effects, etc.. added out of fear of a performance loss. Therein lies my question...It seems to me that FSX has all these great modeling advantages over FS9, but people don't want to take advatage of it out of fear of a performance loss....so, what's the point of FSX then? It's almost as if people want aircraft developed for FSX, but then don't have the actual computer horsepower (or so they think) to actually take advantage of it at all. "Yes, please only make aircraft for FSX....it is the future of flightsimming and it is time to move on from FS9.......BUT, don't add in wingflex, VC rain effects, etc.. etc......I don't think my computer can handle it". It seems completely backwards.If all of these features which are considered "standard" in FS9 are too much of a bear on FSX, well, why use FSX? I attribute it to buying a Corvette and never being able to go over 35 mph. I guess I just don't see the point.So, FSX Developers, what am I missing here? Are customers demanding features that current computer technology can't really handle? Aerosoft suggests that adding in wingflex would incur a huge performance hit. They are also suggesting that VC rain effects will incur a 50% hit in performance. Now, I can't speak for everybody here, but when PMDG released their patch/upgrade for the J41 with the VC rain effects, I certaily did NOT lose 50% of my performance. Their MD-11 has winglfex and that aircraft's performace is pretty darn nice as well. I guess I just don't understand where these huge performace hits are coming from with regards to wingflex and vc rain effects. I am no developer, so my apologies if these questions are a little open-ended. It just seems that the numbers being stated by Aerosoft are a little "extreme". Will wingflex ad vc rain effects really decrese performace that much? I haven't seen this with other add-ons.Thanks for your time!

To answer your questions, yes those things will impact performance but not to that level. The wingflex in the A320 is negliable as the wing is short and stiff. The 737 on the other hand has long flexible wings that flex easily, so you would expect it on that aircraft. I'm not 100% sure about rain effects, it's something I need to learn more about, but from my understanding it's just an animated texture that us activated in rain, this will hit fps but looks exelent and should be a config manager option. I gave noticed very small hut from it on j41.

But how do they know rain effects will affect performance by 50% unless they've actually built the model?

Despite the fact that I doubt the importance of such effects, I'd like to point the finger towards some companies (luckily only a few) that tell funny stories about so "very logical" reasons (e. g. that huge performance loss) to not implement some features, while others justs offer them and every customer then can see and decide if for example his performance is so severely reduced or not.It's always easy to tell the trusting folks some stories about the FSX boundaries, regulations, performance loss and of course the almighty "they don't use that in the real world" sentence. Well, some explanations might fit, while others are just false pretences to get rid of some extra code and work whicht might increase the price of already expensive stuff.Another funny thing is the wish for e. g. wingflex if asked for features of a maybe advanced addon aircraft. I thought the "advanced optics version" is already available while some guys are waiting for some "basic Airbus function" one. But that's another story, you're right.Mentioning rain effects: Can't see any performance impact on the fine Realair Duke. Mentioning wingflex: Can't see huge negative effects on the big PMDG birds too.Best way would be a on/off option then, so every user can decide and evaluate the importance and impact for himself.Personally I don't need wingflex at all but rain effects would be nice. But that's not what I would call an addon "advanced" for.

It's questions for developers... but none have responded.The responses given thus far, do not touch on development issues at all, only user experience with completed products.While I can't speak for Aerosoft... I can say this: If you think comparing the J41 to an Airbus for 3D visual framerate performance is 'even/equal', you're insane. Might want to sit down and rethink about what does and does not actually impact framerates, not just what 'addon'... but literally what item(s).

Correct me, WarpD, but did you actually answer any questions with your "insane" statement? :( Of course, no offense intended.

To correct one misconception...FSX does not support "vcrain." Period. The "chained animation system" that FS8/9 used to sequence the 32 separate bitmaps was gutted from the FSX engine.Yes, it is possible to create a similar effect in FSX, albeit with a lot of extra work by the modeler, and a significant increase in the model's overhead.FS8/9 Mechanics:1. 2 sets of interior window polygons: non-moving and moving2. 2 sets of Materials: non-moving and movingThe "system" is completely automatic. The modeler need only set up the proper hierarchy, and ensure accurately named control nodes and parts.FSX Mechanics:1. 32 sets of interior window polygons: 16 for non-moving, and 16 for moving2. 32 sets of FSX Materials: one for each of the 32 custom made textures required3. 32 custom XML scripts: one for each of the 32 sets of window polys and their FSX MaterialsThis "system" is completely home grown, and requires a significant investment of both time and energy to implement and test. Depending on the model size and number of windows involved, it has the potential to be a huge resource sink.Given the complexity of the process required for FSX, it should now be no great surprise that few have bothered with the procedure, as it is simply too much time, effort and expense for far too little gain.

It's questions for developers... but none have responded.The responses given thus far, do not touch on development issues at all, only user experience with completed products.

Ed, maybe you should go check some of Anthony's work? The link is in his signature. His airports have garnered near 100% positive comments, from what I've seen.

Ed, maybe you should go check some of Anthony's work? The link is in his signature. His airports have garnered near 100% positive comments, from what I've seen.

Don't need to... once again, attempting to take one aircraft's VC and applying it's performance to a completely different VC entirely just doesn't make sense. People do it all the time, and it's crazy-talk.A VC with a classic steam six-pack will always get far greater performance than a full glass VC. Doesn't matter what system you run them on. Yet people want to take something like the J41 which is a relatively simple panel setup and compare it to something that's got a great deal more going (glass, lots of it).

Don't need to...

That's too bad. You make a statement that no developer had responded, I point out that one had, you refuse to acknowledge your error. OK, what ever.

That's too bad. You make a statement that no developer had responded, I point out that one had, you refuse to acknowledge your error. OK, what ever.

Okay, no aircraft developer then. There's a huge difference between scenery and aircraft development after all... :(

That's too bad. You make a statement that no developer had responded, I point out that one had, you refuse to acknowledge your error. OK, what ever.

Well, having bothered to look at his website... I see he now sells an aircraft addon. That means he's a commercial member, without a commercial member tag. I think it's fair to say that his clearly recent entry into the commercial aircraft development market could be easily overlooked by most.Unfortunately, if that's the bone you want to pick... you're probably just looking for a forum fight.My actual statement regarding the performance of base analog gauges versus digital glass displays is dramatically different and impossible to correlate in a relative manner.

Well, having bothered to look at his website... I see he now sells an aircraft addon.  That means he's a commercial member, without a commercial member tag.  I think it's fair to say that his clearly recent entry into the commercial aircraft development market could be easily overlooked by most.Unfortunately, if that's the bone you want to pick... you're probably just looking for a forum fight.My actual statement regarding the performance of base analog gauges versus digital glass displays is dramatically different and impossible to correlate in a relative manner.

You guys really should turn this into a private discussion :( .... 

It's questions for developers... but none have responded.The responses given thus far, do not touch on development issues at all, only user experience with completed products.While I can't speak for Aerosoft... I can say this: If you think comparing the J41 to an Airbus for 3D visual framerate performance is 'even/equal', you're insane. Might want to sit down and rethink about what does and does not actually impact framerates, not just what 'addon'... but literally what item(s).

That is my exact question....What is the "expected" impact of said item(s) on performance. I used the J41 as a example because it currently has VC rain effects. I could have used the Duke in the same scenario.I wasn't comparing the J41 to the Airbus X at all. Comparing an effect and it's performance impact across two different add-ons is completely valid. If product A loses 5 fps from the addition of a singular effect, it is reasonable to suggest that product B would also lose 5 fps....since the only variable being "added" was that one effect. I am comparing effects on performance of the two effects mentioned (in the case of the J41, just vc rain effects since I do not think it has winglfex).You are taking my questions as a direct comparison between add-ons, which is wrong. I am asking about the performance impact as it pertains to ONLY the effects on each add-on individually, i.e., if the PMDG J41 did not take a 50% performace hit from the addition of VC rain effects, is it reasonable to suggest the Airbus X will not either?Bill, thank you for the clarification regarding the vc rain effects. As a person not actually developing add-ons, but rather just seeing the finished work, it is easy to take these additions for granted.

Okay, no aircraft developer then. There's a huge difference between scenery and aircraft development after all... :(

Bill, meet Anthony aka Ant. He made the Tecnam you liked? :( And a Tiger Moth, too!